Yes, it's been one busy week here at OSNews. We published a guide on how to build a computer that can run Mac OS X using an unaltered retail disc, and this guide became one of the most often-visited stories in a matter of days. On top of that, we had countless interesting and insightful discussions about Mono and Moonlight, the Linux Unified Kernel, switching to Mac OS X, the future of the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, and lots of other interesting stuff. Due to me being engulfed in university work, there is - again - no My Take this week. It might take a few weeks before I can get My Take back into the game - my apologies for that.

I've read your Hackintosh article and looked at the software you used to achieve the installation (Boot 123 and the drivers package particularly).

They do no miracle and part of their code are based on Apple's kernel extensions code being modified to crack the protections implemented in the original kext.

So not only the procedure violates the EULA which requires an Apple BRANDED (not just labeled) computer but also violates copyright laws in the USA and internationally, as it uses modified copyrighted code.

So the procedure is not at all legal even if you used unmodified Leopard DVD.

What I wonder on the subject is why nobody has tried to do a class-action against Apple if so much people seem to disagree with the EULA term saying that you can install Mac OS X only on an Apple branded computer. I'm not american but as far as I know this procedure that exists in the US allow US citizen to group themselves to sue a company.

So this would be perfectly suited to remove the legal barrier of the EULA (dont forget to tell also to the court that you want also the court to condemn Apple to put all the resources they have to help making Mac OS X installation on PCs possible.
Because if not, you'll still have to crack the existing protections and so modify or use other hackers modified copyrighted software (kernel extensions for instance like AppleDecrypt.kext), which would still make the install illegal regarding copyright laws.

....So not only the procedure violates the EULA which requires an Apple BRANDED (not just labeled) computer but also violates copyright laws in the USA and internationally, as it uses modified copyrighted code.

So the procedure is not at all legal even if you used unmodified Leopard DVD.

This is a common mistake. US copyright law gives you the right to modify in order to make your lawful copy interwork or install. By the way, US copyright law also protects your right to tell others how to do it, and you may instruct and authorize others to do it on your behalf. You may not redistribute the altered copies without consent. Thom has not done that.

So Thom broke the EULA. But he did not do anything to contravene US copyright law.

Kaiwai,

I didn't mean to personally insult you and Mac users. What I intended was an account of the possible dynamics of the market. I think it could be that the Hackintosh will fail as a product no matter who offers it, because apart from a few technical people, there may be no demand for it, and the reason for that may be that part of the appeal of the Mac is the Apple brand. That is the one thing that the Hackintosh maker cannot deliver. He can only deliver OSX, which may be enough for you and the other knowledgeable buyers, but won't be enough for the general public.

They do no miracle and part of their code are based on Apple's kernel extensions code being modified to crack the protections implemented in the original kext.

Which kexts are you referring too? What information I can find on boot-132 indicates that it includes some additional kexts I.e. drivers for hardware you don't find in a "real" Mac, or replacement kexts that over-write the standard Apple ones, that have been written by third parties.

Because if not, you'll still have to crack the existing protections and so modify or use other hackers modified copyrighted software (kernel extensions for instance like AppleDecrypt.kext), which would still make the install illegal regarding copyright laws.

According to the information I can find, AppleDecrypt.kext is legal to distribute (It is licensed under the GPL even). From a post elsewhere dated August 8th 2008:

The only legal file to distribute at this time is the latest AppleDecrypt.kext because it does not include the key or poem, the source is GNU-GPL and PsyStar is currently in possession of the source.

The problem is that finding any solid information on boot-132 is surprisingly difficult. If you have a better source of information or could point out where exactly the Apple copyrighted components are in boot-132 I'd be very interested.